Tort - General Negligence - Cases Flashcards
Contractual relationship
Stansbie v Troman
Established doc - Contractual relationship
Proximity requirement is fulfilled through contract here, so Caparo test fulfilled (still need to consider stage 3 - fair just and reasonable)
Parent-child or familial relationships
Stone v Dobinson
Voluntary assumption of DoC
Creating or permitting the existence of a dangerous situation?
Haynes v harwood
Doc assumed
Exacerbating an existing situation
Capital and Counties
Doc
Econ loss caused by negligent misstatement
Hedley Byrne
Duty to give careful job references
Spring v guardian association
Duty of a solicitor to potential clients or beneficiaries
White v Jones
Neighbour principle
What is it? Which case? Why relevant?
Donoghue v Stevenson
Doc principle first established, since an “ocean of liability” was created, so needed to limit it somehow.
Lord Atkin formulated it as the neighbour principle
Said have to look at proximity - he used the bible to establish it as there was no precedent to base it on!
Which case expanded liability from the neighbour principle?
Anns v Merton
Lord wilberforce 2 stage test: neighbour principle, do we have any policy reasons which negate the existence of a doc?
Expanded liability
Caparo-dickman
3stage test Foreseeability Proximity Fair, just and reasonable? More defendant-friendly, so reduced no claims - reduced liability.
Was the Caparo dickman test an improvement on the previous, 2-stage test in Anns v merton?
Claimant point of view: no. Defendant PoV: yes
Criticisms - still fairly vague. It only really added the fair, just and reasonable criterion. So introducing a moral component. & makes test more certain, so harder to evade.
Foreseeability - open to manipulation by the courts. Done on balance of probs, so whether harm is more likely than not.
Proximity(2) and FJR (3)- policy implications are hidden behind these two criteria, so not looking at policy implications directly.
Which case would you use for foreseeability? I.e. Stage one of Caparo-dickman test?
AG v hartwell
D doesn’t have to foresee harm to the individual, just harm to SOMEONE
If C has a condition why will it matter if D has of it?
Paris v Stephney
It’ll make harm MORE foreseeable
Which case would you use to evidence proximity, I.e. The second stage of the Caparo-dickman test for duty of care?
Hill v CC of west Yorks
Jack the Ripper case. Police
C&D must have a relationship of sufficient proximity
What does sufficient proximity mean?
Geographical
Economic
Social. Do they know each other?
If a public body then need to establish if the claimant is within a class of affected individuals. The size of the class matters for policy reasons - big class means more claimants so less likely to establish a doc on this basis
What else would you use Hill v CC of west Yorks for?
Police police police Police don't owe a duty to public as a whole, they owe a duty to particular individuals. Or perhaps a class of individuals (provided this class isn't massive!)
In which case did a claimant have previous dealings with the police, and why was this relevant?
Osman v ferguson
Teacher boy unhealthy relationship.
Relevant because a relationship of proximity was created
But there was no breach of this duty - said police have blanket immunity
Was appealed in Osman v UK
If the victim is within a class of claimants, what must the victim be in order to fulfil the proximity requirement? Which case?
Potentially identifiable (can't have a massive class) Palmer v Tees
What is the court’s attitude towards imposing liability where a third party has committed the tort?
Case?
Reluctant
Perl v Camden LBC
Where WILL the courts impose liability on D where the tort was committed by a third party?
. Vicarious liability - where third party neg, but happens in the course of employment, so c can claim against employer
. Sufficient proximity between D and third party
. Where D created the danger (assumed responsibility)
. Where danger exists on d’s premises - state of premises, occupiers liability
Which case for sufficient proximity between a d and a third party? (Where third part committed the tort but claimant can sue D)
Dorset Yacht
Large degree of control exists where the number of potential victims is small
So police DO owe a duty where they have a large degree of control and the risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable
If D has created/allowed a dangerous situation to arise, even though a third party commits the wrong, would D be liable? When? Case?
Topp
When the danger is sufficiently substantial
D has to have created the dangerous situation (or allowed it to arise -omission)
Which case for when D has allowed a dangerous state of premises? What must D show to evade liability?
Smith v Littlewoods
Must show he has taken reasonable steps to prevent or remove the harm occurring
When will a referee owe a doc to the players in sport? Case?
Vowles v Evans 2003
First case involving amateur sport where ref owed duty to players
Have to look at type of harm caused (proximity) and ask if it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability
Judges v slow to recognise duty and breach here (hence 2003)
Need to look at level of sport being played - less likely to impose a duty if unskilled (amateur level)
What are the five factors you need to bear in mind for the fair and just imposition of liability?
Omission? Floodgates Insurance (broadest shoulders idea) Defensive practices (e.g. Police) Crushing liability (e.g. Where large class of claimants, or lots of very financially substantial claims)
Generally, can a duty be imposed for omissions to act?
No
Yuan Kun Yeu
Policy reasons, would be too easy to establish duty and impose liability
What are the five situations (exceptions) for when a duty WILL be imposed for omission to act?
. Where D exerts high degree of control over v
. Statute imposes a positive duty to act
. A contractual duty exists
. D has voluntarily assumed responsibility for another person
. D has created a dangerous situation (doesn’t matter if it’s his own fault, or a third party’s fault - the D is omitting to act here!)
In which case were the police found to be negligent where they omitted to act?
Reeves v Met police commissioner
They exerted a high degree of control over the C, therefore a duty could be imposed
(No potential claimants - class - small - Dorset yacht)
In which case did D assume responsibility through an employer-employee relationship, and then omitted to act (so a duty was imposed)?
Costello
At which point will D (ambulance) become liable where C has summoned medical assistance and D has failed to act? Which 2 cases highlight this point of law?
When the call has been ACCEPTED
Barrett (child was already in care, so the duty was assumed. D failed to act, child harmed, so breach of duty)
Bolitho
Where D has assumed care responsibility for C what are they obliged to do? Case?
Inform the C of the risk of harm or loss
Mitchell v Glasgow CC
Which case for when D has allowed or created a dangerous situation to arise, so a duty can be imposed (I.e. Fair, just and reasonable)?
Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC
Duty imposed regardless of whether a third party caused it. (So long as harm was reasonably foreseeable)
What does ‘crushing liability’ mean? Why is it unfair to impose a duty in such circumstances? Case?
Crushing liability = not a good thing for the collective welfare
Nicholas H case
Ship. Had already sued (and won) in contract, so it isn’t fair or reasonable to impose liability in tort law too. They were suing for the remaining money (so NOT a case of double recovery)
General rule for police duty imposition? Case? Why?
Hill
Won’t be imposed. Police owe a duty to public as a whole, not to individuals
Would case defensive practices
Is there a duty to disclose potential psychological risks of acting as a lay wines or to test a lay witness’ susceptibility to psychological damage? Case?
No.
Leach v CC of Gloucester
Do police owe a duty not to disclose confidential information? Case?
Yes. Swinney.
There is no blanket immunity for the police
Here they didn’t keep the identity of the informant secret
In which case did C argue that police immunity amounted to an Art 6 (fair trial) breach? Were they successful?
Osman v UK
ECtHR said that Art 6 was breached
Criticism: duty of care is a substantive issue. A breach of Art 6 is a procedural issue. No-one was restricting my osman’s access to a court here!
The real q should be: who is owed a duty of care?
In which recent (2014) case was a duty not imposed on police because it would ‘fetter police investigations’?
Robinson 2014
Name another case where police immunity was protected. Why was it protected?
Van Colle.
Because you can’t reasonably expect the police to have foreseen danger in this case.
Name three exceptions to police immunity. Cases?
Duty for operational (not policy) matters - Rigby
Duty not to disclose confidential info - Swinney
Duty where exert a high degree of control over a small group of potential claimants and are aware of damage (Reeves) or the damage was reasonably foreseeable (Dorset Yacht)
Ambulance service - case?
Kent v Griffiths
Only owe a duty as soon as the call is accepted, though they are permitted to deal with more pressing emergencies first.
Ambulance may therefore be liable for operational but not policy matters.
Fire services - case? What is the scope of their duty?
Capital and Counties
No duty to attend a fire, but hey must not exacerbate it if they do
Case for emergency call operators?
Michael v chief constable of s Wales
No liability here. Operator didn’t hear last part of call so didn’t rank it as high enough priority. person killed.
Did what could with info supplied?
Was this incompetence? Could C argue Art 2 breach?
What was X v Beds 1995 about?
5 appeals, 2 to do with child abuse, 3 to do with education
Is there a duty to take a child into care?
Should a duty be imposed for the educational provision of children with special needs? If so, what is the scope of the duty?
What was the outcome of the educational appeals in X v beds?
Said it isn’t fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty to make special provisions for children with special needs since there is a special complaints procedure for this. Reason = policy. Someone could challenge where the local authority chooses to allocate its funding.
However, if the authority DID choose to provide such a service, then they have assumed a duty.
